Stupid question. Stupid options. Neither dropping "the bomb" (or bombs) will deter Iran from pursuing nuclear armament not deter Russia from attacking Ukraine. Attacking Iran with nuclear weapons creates a security paradox. For the attacker, the message is pursue nuclear weapons and you will suffer catastrophic consequences. For the defender (Iran), the message is completely different; We were attacked catastrophically precisely because we did not yet possess a credible nuclear deterrent. Unless the purpose was to commit genocide (completely break Iran as a viable society), at best, such an attack will delay a programme, resulting in another nuclear attack later on. And on. And on. Until eventually a 4th party freighter sales up the Hudson..... It will likely create a 100 new Islamic Republic of Irans; possession of nuclear weapons is not a deterrant against war, and the maintenance of peace, but to prevent attack. A nuclear armed Emirate of Afghanistan effectively buys immunity. Attacking Russia with nuclear weapons would merely validate Putin's paranoia, and change the war in Ukraine into one of national survival. Russia might decide it can withstand a nuclear attack better than the United States, now that the US has revealed its hand (which presumably would be a tactical nuke or nukes, against massed Russian Army formations). It would simply result in the annihilation of the United States. Russia probably would survive such an exchange rather better; its population is more dispersed, and thanks to the US action, likely better prepared to take to well maintained public shelters of a sort that simply don't exist in the United States. Nuclear weapons are primarily instruments of deterrence, but deterrence is itself a form of power. By extending its deterrent to allies and using it to shape the strategic environment in which conventional forces operate, the United States can project power partly because it possesses nuclear weapons, even if it never uses one. But using such a weapon offensively completely destroys that deterrence. It would completely destroy whatever was left of the Western Alliance, an alliance that includes two other nuclear powers, and at least one near-nuclear power. The Eastern Alliance would be no more; Japan is a near-nuclear power, perhaps South Korea is as well. In fact, South Korea may quickly pursue reunification with North Korea, as a convenient way to acquire nuclear protection against an unpredictable United States who has decided nuclear attack is part of trade talks, or a way to manipulate the markets, given the US President's Freudian slip; when asked by a Fox reporter at Joint Base Andrews "The yields (of bonds) have come back up since then. Have you talked to Bessent about another type of intervention?", the response was "The ultimate intervention is our military. If we have to use that, we will".
Create an account or sign in to comment